Joseph Butler1, Simone de Cassan2, Phil Turner3, Belinda Lennox4, Gail Hayward5, Margaret Glogowska5. 1. Foundation Year 3 Physical Health Care, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Joseph.Butler@psych.ox.ac.uk. 2. Core trainee Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. 3. NIHR Community Healthcare MIC, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 4. Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK and Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 5. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Point of Care Testing (POCT) is being increasingly used to augment the delivery of physical health care in a variety of settings, but their use in mental health has been limited. Research into understanding the barriers faced for successful implementation of POCT in these settings is lacking. We aimed to identify factors affecting engagement and implementation of POCT within mental health teams by exploring the attitudes to POCT, and the perceived impact POCT has on the practice of mental healthcare clinicians. METHODS: Alongside a study evaluating the impact of a point of care device in Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs), qualitative interviews were carried out with CMHT clinicians using POCT as part of annual physical checks for patients with severe and enduring mental illness. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen clinicians were interviewed across a range of professional backgrounds. Clinicians identified usability of the technology, positive impact on their patient's experience and improved self-efficacy as drivers for successful implementation of POCT into their clinical practice. Issues with device functioning and the potential for a negative effect on the therapeutic relationship with their patients were identified as barriers. Level of physical heath training was not found to be a barrier by mental health professionals to using POCT. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding barriers and drivers for engagement is important to allow co-production of POCT and guidelines to facilitate introduction of POCT into routine clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Point of Care Testing (POCT) is being increasingly used to augment the delivery of physical health care in a variety of settings, but their use in mental health has been limited. Research into understanding the barriers faced for successful implementation of POCT in these settings is lacking. We aimed to identify factors affecting engagement and implementation of POCT within mental health teams by exploring the attitudes to POCT, and the perceived impact POCT has on the practice of mental healthcare clinicians. METHODS: Alongside a study evaluating the impact of a point of care device in Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs), qualitative interviews were carried out with CMHT clinicians using POCT as part of annual physical checks for patients with severe and enduring mental illness. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen clinicians were interviewed across a range of professional backgrounds. Clinicians identified usability of the technology, positive impact on their patient's experience and improved self-efficacy as drivers for successful implementation of POCT into their clinical practice. Issues with device functioning and the potential for a negative effect on the therapeutic relationship with their patients were identified as barriers. Level of physical heath training was not found to be a barrier by mental health professionals to using POCT. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding barriers and drivers for engagement is important to allow co-production of POCT and guidelines to facilitate introduction of POCT into routine clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
CMHT; Community mental health team; POCT; Physical health; Point of care device; Point of care testing; Severe mental illness
Authors: Tanya K Bubner; Caroline O Laurence; Angela Gialamas; Lisa N Yelland; Philip Ryan; Kristyn J Willson; Philip Tideman; Paul Worley; Justin J Beilby Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Michelle M A Kip; J Marjan Hummel; Elra B Eppink; Hendrik Koffijberg; Rogier M Hopstaken; Maarten J IJzerman; Ron Kusters Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Caroline H D Jones; Jeremy Howick; Nia W Roberts; Christopher P Price; Carl Heneghan; Annette Plüddemann; Matthew Thompson Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Gail Hayward; Sharon Dixon; Sophie Garland; Margaret Glogowska; Helen Hunt; Daniel Lasserson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 2.692